Newark and Sherwood District Council appeal evidence
Refused over area character and appearance in Newark and Sherwood?
Learn which design concerns appeared in selected local examples and what the allowed extension achieved.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 40 of 60
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 9
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 31
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 37
- of 40 matched records
AI-assisted. Cited sources and wording were checked before publication. Based on 5 source-linked examples shown below. Review method and limits.
Planning Data area point: Newark and Sherwood LPA (53.124013, −0.919748). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Newark and Sherwood District Council appeal findings
Newark and Sherwood: extension bulk and proportions
The selected allowed example gives only the Inspector’s conclusion, not the design details behind it.
Counted against appeals
Forward bulk and rear proportions
Forward bulk and position
The forward extension’s bulk, massing and position against its neighbour and frontage were found harmful to the street scene.
Rear elevation looked ill-proportioned
Rear and side extensions created an ill-proportioned rear elevation, visible from a neighbour’s garden and some nearby properties.
Conclusion-only harm findings
The selected rendering and storage examples conclude harm to character and appearance, without detailed reasons.
Helped or needed
Allowed extension: no design detail
Character was found preserved
The Inspector concluded that the side/front extension preserved the area’s character and appearance, but the extract gives no design reasons.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify bulk, massing or extension position?
- Does it explain the effect on the street scene or nearby views?
- Does it identify an ill-proportioned elevation or harmed building character?
The conclusion-only extracts limit comparison of the allowed extension with the rendering and garden storage proposals. These decisions do not predict another result.
Appeal evidence examples
Compare allowed and dismissed appeal reasoning
Each example separates the development, the Inspector-stated issue that selected it, and the reasoning from the decision. Compare the facts as well as the outcome: these examples do not predict how a different proposal would be decided.
Allowed appeal examples
1 example
1 December 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a two storey side/front extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons, therefore, I conclude that the proposal would represent an acceptable extension to the host dwelling that would preserve the character and appearance of the area, in accordance with the aforementioned requirements of Core Policy 9 of the ACS, Policies DM5 and DM6 of the ADM, the guidance of the HDSPD and the aims of the Framework.
Paragraph 15 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
24 February 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
Two storey side extension over garage with 2no. window revisions.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The Council has found harm in relation to the proposed materials but my concerns arise from the bulk, massing and positioning of the forward extension in relation to No 65 and the development’s overall impact on the street scene. [name] 67’s overall relationship with the [address] frontage, I conclude that this would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
20 September 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the “completion of insulation and rendering to the external walls of the house with the Green Home Grant. The front of the house and sides will be done and not the back of the house. The render will be the same colour as the existing walls. The house has no cavity walls due to its age.”
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would therefore harm the character and appearance of the area, contrary to [name] 9 and 14 of the Newark and Sherwood Local Development Framework Core Strategy and [name] (March 2019), and Policies DM5, DM6 and DM9 of the Newark and [name] and Development Management Development Plan Document (2013). Combined with the Framework, these policies seek, amongst other things, to ensure that development is of appropriate design for the character and appearance of the area and protects and enhances the historic environment.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
8 March 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the conversion of garage to bedroom; removal of a covered area and the construction of an orangery and ensuite; small single storey extension to front elevation to form utility room; small 2-storey extension to the rear elevation to form dining area with ensuite over.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host building and the local area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
As a result, the rear elevation of the finished building would be ill proportioned and uneasy on the eye, which would be evident from the back garden of No 22 and some nearby properties. For these reasons, the new rear and side extensions would unduly compromise and therefore harm the intrinsic character of the host building even taking into account its individualistic style. In doing so, the proposal would detract from the character and appearance of the CA, which would fail to be preserved or enhanced.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
23 March 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
to build a concrete sectional building on a concrete base for storage of garden furniture, garden tools, etc.
Issue identified by the Inspector
It is considered that the main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons given, it is concluded that the proposed development would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area and, as such, it would conflict with Policies DM5, DM6 and DM9 of the Newark and [name] and Development Management Development Plan Document. Amongst other matters, these policies require development to take into account the local distinctiveness and character of an area and also the significance and setting of any heritage asset. Accordingly, it is concluded that this appeal should be dismissed.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2